Fwd: [CMake] Adding cross-compiler support to CMake ... (fwd)

[Michael Casadevall]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Michael Casadevall <sonicmctails at aol.com>
> Date: September 6, 2006 1:04:23 PM EDT
> To: Alan W. Irwin <irwin at beluga.phys.uvic.ca>
> Cc: Robert Schwebel <r.schwebel at pengutronix.de>
> Subject: Re: [CMake] Adding cross-compiler support to CMake ... (fwd)
>
> Hrm, I thought my mail program was set to reply to all people in  
> email - fixed now. At the moment, I've checked out the CMake-HEAD  
> code, and I'm figuring out how this will be done in specific.
>
> My intent here is not to start a flamewar between autotools and  
> cmake, In some cases, autotools is the proper tool vs cmake due to  
> cross-compiling (which will hopefully fixed) and the fact that you  
> need the cmake executable to build any CMake package. autotools  
> configure script merely needs a shell interpreter, and if your  
> compiling on an extreme obscure platform, autotools might be the  
> better choice. Anyway, I'm not going to continue comparing  
> autotools and cmake since that will get anyone anywhere, and I'll  
> only be referring autotools on how it performs cross-compilation,  
> and problems with said system.
>
> Anyway, I'm going through the code in Eclipse right now, and I'm  
> working out my angle of attack and how I should do this  
> specifically. The biggest problem is loading two platforms at the  
> same time (the target and the host) but I can't find the code where  
> this is handled to see specifically what is going to be required.  
> I'm also having locating the code to generate the actual makefiles,  
> although I'll probably find this with a little more search.
> Michael
>
>> Hi Michael:
>>
>> To give you some background for Robert's e-mail to you, PLplot is  
>> mostly done
>> converting to a CMake build system from autotools.  Everybody who  
>> has tried
>> the new system really likes it because of its speed, easy-to- 
>> understand syntax,
>> and ability to provide builds on both Unix and windows platforms.   
>> However,
>> our autotools based build system and our cmake-based build system  
>> can nicely
>> coexist so we will probably keep our autotools based build system  
>> for at
>> least a year before we abandon it.
>>
>> Robert is the only PLplot user so far that still objects to the  
>> new build
>> system.  He hasn't actually tried our new build system yet, but on  
>> the other
>> hand, he appears to have some legitimate cross-compilation  
>> concerns so that
>> is why I suggested he get in contact with you after I saw your  
>> post on the
>> CMake mailing list.
>>
>> Robert, it appears your e-mail is full of useful suggestions, but  
>> part of it
>> also attempts to start a theoretical discussion of autotools  
>> versus cmake
>> pros and cons, but until you have direct well-documented  
>> comparisons (as
>> opposed to anecedotal reports) such discussions are a complete  
>> waste of time
>> (IMNSHO).
>>
>> Thus, I urge Michael not to answer that part of Robert's e-mail.  
>> Instead,
>> let's take it as given that CMake support of cross-compilation  
>> will improve,
>> and the only real question is how to get there and whether Robert  
>> wants to
>> help with any part of that process beyond the suggestions he has  
>> made already.
>>
>> In other words, there is nothing like concrete code, examples, and  
>> tests to
>> make progress.  When I first brought the idea of a new build  
>> system to the
>> PLplot list, I also had to contend with such negative theoretical
>> discussions (one of them Robert's but to be fair, others did the  
>> same as
>> well who have since so much liked our new build system that they  
>> have helped
>> to improve it). I eventually decided to ignore the negative  
>> comments, and I
>> just went ahead and started implementing the new build system.   
>> Within a
>> week it started catching on amongst our active developers, and the  
>> result is
>> going to be extremely good for PLplot because of the outstanding  
>> qualities
>> of the new build system that I mentioned above.
>>
>> Michael, that's it on the background behind Robert's e-mail to you.
>>
>> That said, I hope Robert can clarify his cross-compilation PLplot  
>> needs with
>> you by providing extensive testing for the PLplot case so that  
>> cmake in
>> general and PLplot's new build system in specific will end up with  
>> kick-ass
>> cross-compilation support.
>>
>> Whether or not Robert participates any further, I can help by  
>> making changes
>> to the PLplot CMake build system so it takes advantage of your new
>> cross-compilation support once you complete that. Also, I can help  
>> to a
>> small extent with the testing for PLplot since I have access to  
>> two minor
>> platform variations.  (One Debian stable pentium-4 2.4GHz box, and  
>> one
>> Ubuntu Dapper classical Athlon (600MHz) box.) It would be nice to
>> cross-compile for the 600MHz box on the 2.4GHz box. Note, I have  
>> never done
>> cross-compilation before, even though it is apparently possible  
>> with the
>> older PLplot autotools-based build system.
>>
>> Alan
>> __________________________
>> Alan W. Irwin
>>
>> Astronomical research affiliation with Department of Physics and  
>> Astronomy,
>> University of Victoria (astrowww.phys.uvic.ca).
>>
>> Programming affiliations with the FreeEOS equation-of-state  
>> implementation
>> for stellar interiors (freeeos.sf.net); PLplot scientific plotting  
>> software
>> package (plplot.org); the Yorick front-end to PLplot  
>> (yplot.sf.net); the
>> Loads of Linux Links project (loll.sf.net); and the Linux Brochure  
>> Project
>> (lbproject.sf.net).
>> __________________________
>>
>> Linux-powered Science
>> __________________________
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://public.kitware.com/pipermail/cmake/attachments/20060906/e93a6284/attachment.html